The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-22
referred to in the coloquy which you have just

reierIeo 10 In the coiioquy which you nave JUST
readl7
Mr. Pryor-"No, your Honor. but"
Mr.. Justice Miiler-'sThen this particular ma n
was the trial iury2"
Mr. Pryor-'.No. your Honor, he WAS not: but
exactly the same questions raised in the
cases of men who were"
Justice Miller said he asked for informal
because in case which recently before
him from Missouri similar objections were urged
to particular juror, and it cost him three days
study of the record to find out that the man
whose was thus emphasized in the argu-
ment had not actually been member of the jury
at ALL
Mr.. Pryor said it abundantly appeared in the
record that at least TWO of the jurors who actu-
ally sat on the trial were persons having p-epos-
sessions and prejudices of the character do
scribed. Ihus by the action OF the lower court.
he said, the Illinois statute had been made to
deprive the accused of the right OF trial by
impartial jury, had abridged their privileges as
citiZehs of the United States. and about
TO deprive them of life. etc, without the process
of law.
The Chief-iustice remarked that the only
question for this court was whether the statute
was constitutional. If the court erred in its ad-
ministration of the statute, that was question
for the State courts.
Mr.. Pryor replied that the action of the State
court was tho action of the State. If the statute
was administered unfairly it was State action,
and that brought it within the jurisdiction OF
this ccurs 1T must be So" said Mr.. Pryor,
because IL State pass seemingly fair stat
ute, and then ignore it or administer it unfairly,
the protection which the fourteenth amendment
q
his life by partial jury is not due process OF
law. and nevor was due process of law"
Mr. Pryor's second point was that the petit
tioners had been compelled in the trial court ia
be witnesses against themselves. Some of them
were on the stand, and in spite of the protests
of their counsel they were compelled TO submits
to unrestrained cross examination and to
crminate themselves. Compelling a to
testify against himself is not due process of law.
Furthermore. after their arrest, the police. with
out any process of law, broke open their private
desks and extracted from them letters and other
eliminating evidence. and these letters. gotten
without due process of law, were used against
them. When the objection raised 1t
cverrued and exception was taken
The Chief -justice-Can you point US to the
precise exception that taken2
Mr.. Pryor then read extracts from the record
covering the seizure of Spess papers without a
search warrant. and use of them against him.
and maintaining that this was virtually COM
pelling him to testify against himself In viola
tion of the amendment to the Constitution.
The Chief -jussice-Does the record show in
what way these papers were acquired and used2
Mr.. Pryor--Oh, abundantly
The Chief-justice-Have you printed in your
petition the parts of the record where this ap-
pears2
Mr.. Pryor--No, sir; but we have references to
them, and the record is here.
In conclusion. Mr.. PRYOR said that it was not
necessary to refer specifically to the fourteenth
amendment, or any other particular amendment,
violated by the Illinois statute and the pro-
ceedings in the State courts. He would simply
say. broadly. that these were questions raised
under the federal Constitution. And now
your Honors,' he said, 1--WE submit to you on
those questions that there is federal question
raised which entities the petitioners the writ
of error prayed for"
Al the conclusion of Mr. Pryor's speech. the
Chief Justice held brief whispered consulta-
tion with several of the associate justices, in
cluding Field. Miller. Harlan and Matthews,
and then eaid: 'sMr Pryor, YOU may have
printed at once. If possible. the parts of the
them this afternoon early tomorrow
morning. and on Monday we will indicate what
is further necessary to be done"
Mr. Pryor bowed, and all of the couse for the
Anarchists and most of the large audience which
had assent bled stream out of the court-roo in
to the corridor, discussing the proceedings and
the condemned prisoners chances for hearing
before this court
The grounds of the appeal were not fully de-
veloped in the proceedings to-day. j. Randolph
Tucker, of their counsel, not being fully in
accord with his associates relies wholly upon an
argument based upon the provision of the four
teentn amendment TO the Constitution. that mo
State shall make en- force any law which shall
abridge the privileges irlmunitles of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State de-
prive any of lfe liberty property
without due process of law; nor deny to any per-
son within it's jurisdiction the equal protection
of the law" In the opinion of Mr.. Tucker the
provision of the Constitution is violated in many
important respects by the State law and ju.
diclal practices under which the Anarchists
we're condemned. His first claim is that
involve trial by jury. right which counsel
claim to have been denied the Anarchists, mas
much as the jury composed of men preju.
diced against the defendants, convinced in adj
vance of their guilt and determined upon con-
victon. This is based upon the fact that more
than juror accepted who declared that
he had been convinced of the guilt OF the defend
ants and had expressed the opinion that they
should be hung, but that he would be bound 10y
the evidence. Such juror, it is claimed. was
incapable of rendering an impartial verdict, and
trial by such jurors was, in fact trial at all.
After the perenptory challenges of the defense
were exhausted all jurors impaneled were legal
ly disqualified and cannot be recognized ju-
rors within the meaning of the law When the
panel was exhausted. 1t is claimed that the law
was further violated by the instruction of the
court that additional jurors be summoned from
the 'best citizens of Cook county" and the con-
eeoueut summoning of bankers and merchants.
A trial by their peers was thus denied the Anar-
chists
Another point raised is that the record shows
that exception also at one time noted to
a ruling of the court as being in violation of the
State and federal constitutions. This exception
being recognized by the court, it is claimed that
this fact alone gives jurisdiction to the United
States Court.
The great point at issue is a definition asked
for the first time from the United States SUI
preme Court. Of the words. due process OF
law and their relation to the 'iberty of the cit
izen," and the claim, for the first time made,
that the United States Supreme Court must
take cognzance of appeal based upon the I'D.
mission of improper jurors.
PRECAUTIONS AT CHICAGO.